Mhh ist halt sehr lang ...
% This file was created with JabRef 2.8.1.
% Encoding: MacRoman
@ARTICLE{Cohen2005,
author = {Cohen, Anna-Lisa and Dixon, Roger A. and Lindsay, D. Stephen},
title = {The intention interference effect and aging: Similar magnitude of
effects for young and old adults.},
journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
year = {2005},
volume = {19},
pages = {1177 - 1197},
number = {9},
issn = {1099-0720}
}
@ARTICLE{Forster2005,
author = {Forster, J and Liberman, N and Higgins, ET},
title = {Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals},
journal = {JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY},
year = {2005},
volume = {41},
pages = {220-239},
number = {3},
month = {MAY},
doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.009},
issn = {0022-1031},
researcherid-numbers = {Liberman, Nira /D-7994-2011},
unique-id = {ISI:000228431200002}
}
@ARTICLE{Freeman2003,
author = {Freeman, Jayne E. and Ellis, Judi A.},
title = {The intention-superiority effect for naturally occurring activities:
The role of intention accessibility in everyday prospective remembering
in young and older adults.},
journal = {International Journal of Psychology},
year = {2003},
volume = {38},
pages = {215 - 228},
number = {4},
issn = {1464-066X}
}
@ARTICLE{Goschke1993,
author = {Goschke, Thomas and Kuhl, Julius},
title = {Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory.},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
year = {1993},
volume = {19},
pages = {1211 - 1226},
number = {5},
abstract = {In 4 experiments the authors investigated dynamic properties of representations
of intentions. After Ss had memorized 2 texts describing simple activities,
they were instructed that they would have to later execute one of
the scripts. On an intervening recognition test, words from the to-be-executed
script produced faster latencies than did words from a 2nd to-be-memorized
script. This intention-superiority effect was obtained even when
(1) selective encoding and poststudy imagery or rehearsal of the
to-be-executed script was prohibited and (2) Ss expected a final
free-recall test for both scripts. In a control condition in which
Ss had to observe someone else executing a script, latencies for
words from the to-be-observed script did not differ from neutral
words. In conclusion, representations of intentions show a heightened
level of subthreshold activation in long-term memory that cannot
be accounted for by the use of controlled strategies. (PsycINFO Database
Record (c) 2012 APA, al},
issn = {1939-1285}
}
@ARTICLE{Liberman2000,
author = {Liberman, Nira and Förster, Jens},
title = {Expression after suppression: A motivational explanation of postsuppressional
rebound.},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
year = {2000},
volume = {79},
pages = {190 - 203},
number = {2},
issn = {1939-1315}
}
@ARTICLE{Marsh1998,
author = {Marsh, RL and Hicks, JL and Bink, ML},
title = {Activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions},
journal = {JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION},
year = {1998},
volume = {24},
pages = {350-361},
number = {2},
month = {MAR},
abstract = {The intention-superiority effect is the finding that response latencies
are faster for items related to an uncompleted intention as compared
with materials that have no associated intentionality. T. Goschke
and J. Kuhl(1993) used recognition latency for simple action scripts
to document this effect. We used a lexical-decision task to replicate
that shorter latencies were associated with uncompleted intentions
as compared with neutral materials (Experiments 1 and 3). Experiments
2-4, however, demonstrated that latencies were longer for completed
scripts as compared with neutral materials. In Experiment 3, shorter
latencies were also obtained for partially completed scripts. The
results are discussed in terms of the activation and inhibition that
may guide behavior, as well as how these results may inform theories
of prospective memory.},
doi = {10.1037//0278-7393.24.2.350},
issn = {0278-7393},
unique-id = {ISI:000072497100006}
}
@ARTICLE{Marsh1999,
author = {Marsh, Richard L. and Hicks, Jason L. and Bryan, Eric S.},
title = {The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions.},
journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
year = {1999},
volume = {27},
pages = {320 - 327},
number = {2},
issn = {0090-502X}
}
@ARTICLE{McDaniels2000,
author = {McDaniels, Mark A. and Einstein, Gilles O.},
title = {Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval:
A multiprocess framework.},
journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
year = {2000},
volume = {14},
pages = {S127 - S144},
issn = {1099-0720}
}
@ARTICLE{Meil√°n2011,
author = {Meilán, Juan J. G. and Carro, Juan and Arana, José M. and Pérez,
Enrique},
title = {Intention superiority effect on implicit memory of shopping lists:
Activation and inhibition processes.},
journal = {Motivation and Emotion},
year = {2011},
volume = {35},
pages = {144 - 150},
number = {2},
abstract = {Intentional memory is defined as the ability to remember to perform
intentions in the future. Forming an intention such as "shopping"
activates access to memories related to the products on the shopping
list. As Intention Superiority Effect (ISE) studies show, these memories
are more accessible in semantic and episodic memory, more activated
over time and protected from competing representations. The inhibition
of competing representations in intentional memory has been little
examined so far. In this study we attempt to analyze changes in activation
in the recall of products on a shopping list and competitors through
implicit memory tasks. Sixty-five participants learned two shopping
lists on a computer. Later, they were told to virtually buy one of
them (prospective list) and not the other (neutral list). Prior to
intentional task execution, they performed an implicit retrieval
task in which we manipulated the appearance or not of cues from the
intentional list and analyzed the infl},
issn = {0146-7239},
keywords = {intention superiority effect, implicit memory, shopping lists, activation,
semantic memory, episodic memory, product recall, inhibition, intentional
memory, Implicit Memory, Intention, Recall (Learning), Shopping,
Episodic Memory, Semantic Memory},
url = {http://wwwdb.dbod.de:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2011-10132-004&site=ehost-live}
}
@ARTICLE{Penningroth2011,
author = {Penningroth, Suzanna L.},
title = {When does the intention-superiority effect occur? Activation patterns
before and after task completion, and moderating variables.},
journal = {Journal of Cognitive Psychology},
year = {2011},
volume = {23},
pages = {140 - 156},
number = {1},
issn = {2044-592X}
}
@ARTICLE{Penningroth2012,
author = {Penningroth, Suzanna L. and Graf, Peter and Gray, Jennifer M.},
title = {The effect of a working memory load on the intention-superiority
effect: Examining three features of automaticity.},
journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
year = {2012},
volume = {26},
pages = {441 - 450},
number = {3},
abstract = {The intention-superiority effect refers to the finding that intentions
are more accessible than other memory contents. Our primary goal
was to test for automatic processing in this effect, testing three
features of automaticity: unintentionality, effortlessness, and lack
of awareness. We used a postponed-intention paradigm with short action
scripts. The intention-superiority effect was defined as greater
accessibility in a lexical decision task (LDT) for words from to-be-performed
scripts than to-be-remembered scripts. Working memory load was experimentally
manipulated to assess automatic processing. A general intention-superiority
effect was found, demonstrating the automatic feature of unintentionality,
and it was not diminished by a high load, demonstrating the automatic
feature of effortlessness. Also, participants who reported that they
lacked awareness of the link between the LDT and encoded scripts
showed a larger intention-superiority effect than participants who
were aware. T},
issn = {1099-0720},
keywords = {working memory load, intention-superiority effect, automaticity features,
lexical decision, Automation, Human Channel Capacity, Intention,
Lexical Decision, Short Term Memory},
url = {http://wwwdb.dbod.de:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-13332-013&site=ehost-live}
}
@ARTICLE{Scullin2012,
author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M.},
title = {Failing to Forget: Prospective Memory Commission Errors Can Result
From Spontaneous Retrieval and Impaired Executive Control.},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
year = {2012},
abstract = {Prospective memory (PM) research typically examines the ability to
remember to execute delayed intentions but often ignores the ability
to forget finished intentions. We had participants perform (or not
perform; control group) a PM task and then instructed them that the
PM task was finished. We later (re)presented the PM cue. Approximately
25% of participants made a commission error, the erroneous repetition
of a PM response following intention completion. Comparisons between
the PM groups and control group suggested that commission errors
occurred in the absence of preparatory monitoring. Response time
analyses additionally suggested that some participants experienced
fatigue across the ongoing task block, and those who did were more
susceptible to making a commission error. These results supported
the hypothesis that commission errors can arise from the spontaneous
retrieval of finished intentions and possibly the failure to exert
executive control to oppose the PM response. (PsycIN},
issn = {1939-1285},
keywords = {No terms assigned}
}
@ARTICLE{Scullin2012a,
author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M. and McDaniel, Mark A.},
title = {Whoops, I did it again: Commission errors in prospective memory.},
journal = {Psychology and Aging},
year = {2012},
volume = {27},
pages = {46 - 53},
number = {1},
abstract = {Prospective memory research almost exclusively examines remembering
to execute an intention, but the ability to forget completed intentions
may be similarly important. We had younger and older adults perform
a prospective memory task (press Q when you see corn or dancer) and
then told them that the intention was completed. Participants later
performed a lexical-decision task (Phase 2) in which the prospective
memory cues reappeared. Initial prospective memory performance was
similar between age groups, but older adults were more likely than
younger adults to press Q during Phase 2 (i.e., commission errors).
This study provides the first experimental demonstration of event-based
prospective memory commission errors after all prospective memory
tasks are finished and identifies multiple factors that increase
risk for commission errors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA,
all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},
issn = {1939-1498}
}
@ARTICLE{Scullin2011,
author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M. and McDaniel, Mark A. and
Einstein, Gilles O.},
title = {Prospective memory and aging: Preserved spontaneous retrieval, but
impaired deactivation, in older adults.},
journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
year = {2011},
volume = {39},
pages = {1232 - 1240},
number = {7},
abstract = {Prospective remembering is partially supported by cue-driven spontaneous
retrieval processes. We investigated spontaneous retrieval processes
in younger and older adults by presenting prospective memory target
cues during a lexical decision task following instructions that the
prospective memory task was finished. Spontaneous retrieval was inferred
from slowed lexical decision responses to target cues (i.e., intention
interference). When the intention was finished, younger adults efficiently
deactivated their intention, but the older adults continued to retrieve
their intentions. Levels of inhibitory functioning were negatively
associated with intention interference in the older adult group,
but not in the younger adult group. These results indicate that normal
aging might not compromise spontaneous retrieval processes but that
the ability to deactivate completed intentions is impaired. (PsycINFO
Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},
issn = {0090-502X}
}
@ARTICLE{Scullin2009,
author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Einstein, Gilles O. and McDaniel, Mark A.},
title = {Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished
prospective memories.},
journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
year = {2009},
volume = {37},
pages = {425 - 433},
number = {4},
issn = {0090-502X}
}
@ARTICLE{Walser2012,
author = {Walser, Moritz and Fischer, Rico and Goschke, Thomas},
title = {The failure of deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed
intentions in the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm.},
journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
year = {2012},
volume = {38},
pages = {1030 - 1044},
number = {4},
abstract = {We used a newly developed experimental paradigm to investigate aftereffects
of completed intentions on subsequent performance that required the
maintenance and execution of new intentions. Participants performed
an ongoing number categorization task and an additional prospective
memory (PM) task, which required them to respond to PM cues that
differed from standard stimuli in 1 particular visual feature. Although
the feature defining the to-be-acted-upon PM cue changed in each
block, the irrelevant PM cue of the previous PM task block was occasionally
repeated in the subsequent block. In 4 experiments we found that
performance in the ongoing task was substantially slowed for repeated
PM cue trials compared to oddball trials, which also differed in
a visual feature from standard stimuli but never served as PM cues.
This aftereffect decreased as a function of delay after intention
completion. These findings indicate that intentions can exhibit persisting
activation even after they have },
issn = {1939-1285},
keywords = {intention, intention-superiority effect, prospective memory, intention
deactivation, deactivation failure, Intention, Performance, Prospective
Memory}
}
@ARTICLE{Watson1988,
author = {Watson D., Clark L.A. and Tellegen A.},
title = {Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales},
journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
year = {1988},
volume = {54},
pages = {1063-1070},
owner = {Judith},
timestamp = {2012.10.13}
}
@comment{jabref-meta: selector_review:}
@comment{jabref-meta: selector_publisher:}
@comment{jabref-meta: selector_author:}
@comment{jabref-meta: selector_journal:}
@comment{jabref-meta: selector_keywords:}
Jetzt stehe ich allerdigs vor einem Problem was ich einfach nicht gelöst bekomme.
